So, it really has nothing to do with the 95% of "uneducated" Photoshop users, nor with "obscure" preferences, nor (mis)judging sharpness, nor... but everything to do with problems of the 0.00000000001% users who use PS on Retina screens!?

it seems so, yes.As to the "uneducated" users: when it's really such a complicated thing to set the accurate settings for the "print size" zoom Adobe could have provided the quoted script years ago when they introduced OpenCL (without OpenCL any zoom size other than 12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100% was useless anyway). But they didn't ...

So, it really has nothing to do with the 95% of "uneducated" Photoshop users, nor with "obscure" preferences, nor (mis)judging sharpness, nor... but everything to do with problems of the 0.00000000001% users who use PS on Retina screens!?

That's what Adobe engineers said publicly...but that's not what went on behind the scenes...Print Size was almost removed in the original CS6 release because of the tech support and usability issues.

Read what Chris Cox wrote: The change is in the HiDpi support of the OS, plus all the code we added to support high DPI displays. The physical display resolution is only part of the picture, since the OS wants to scale things drawn to the screen in multiple different ways... Again, we know, we're working on a solution - but we had to disable it for now.. If you want to blame Apple for changing the display pipeline, you go right ahead.

There is hope that a better engineered and more usable version may come back at some point. But, for now, it's gone.

There is hope that a better engineered and more usable version may come back at some point. But, for now, it's gone.

as a workaround it would be cool if we could save some dedicated zoom sizes on keybord shortcuts. I would only need "print size" for 300ppi and 360ppi.Another workaround: duplicate the image, downsize it to the desired scale and view it at 100%...

Quote from: Rhossydd on Today at 18:45:54Who said anything about laying out books ?

You did–didn't you write this?

QuoteJust imagine trying to refine a book layout; Do you really think spending £50 and waiting two weeks for the book to arrive is a sensible proposition ?

Sorry if you didn't mention book layouts...sure looks like you did.

You need to read what I've actually written, not what you've, wrongly, assumed I've meant.

I didn't mention creating books in Photoshop at all, just refining them. That doesn't necessarily mean having to produce a whole book in PS, maybe just a page or two.If you want/need to assess the layout of a single page, maybe a page that can't be created any other way*, you may need to view it at actual size to ensure it's as you expect.

*See failing in Lightroom's book module with respect to adding text or custom layouts.

So, it really has nothing to do with the 95% of "uneducated" Photoshop users, nor with "obscure" preferences, nor (mis)judging sharpness, nor... but everything to do with problems of the 0.00000000001% users who use PS on Retina screens!?

I'm sure retina screen users actually are a higher percentage of users than that, but whether they use actual print size or not is another issue. I'm sure some will be as annoyed by it's removal.

What's being demonstrated here seems to be that Adobe just drop any feature from PS across all platforms if it becomes difficult to implement for, or to support, Mac users. I've yet to read of anything being dropped for Mac users because it's difficult to retain for Window users.

What's being demonstrated here seems to be that Adobe just drop any feature from PS across all platforms if it becomes difficult to implement for, or to support, Mac users.

Yep, that's happened before...remember Contact Sheet and several other plug-ins & filters? Dropped for Windows users because updating them for the Mac wasn't feasible. Adobe has a pretty hard core bent on being as cross-platform independent on features. Mac uses do have a few features that Win users don't such as the ability to turn Application Frame on or off. It's always on in Win.

The bottom line is that the HiDpi support would have broken the Print Size anyway. And engineering wanted to remove it for CS6 anyway, so it's gone. Will some new version come back? Sounds like it will based on what the Photoshop engineers wrote on that thread...all I know is that the engineers couldn't get it done this time around.

Yep, that's happened before... Dropped for Windows users because updating them for the Mac wasn't feasible. Adobe has a pretty hard core bent on being as cross-platform independent on features.

Nice to actually see this in writing from someone close to Adobe.

I can see Adobe are having problems with the whole Creative Suite; How to keep it rolling in the money from loyal upgraders when it's already mature and feature complete.I doubt removing features enhances the product in any way. I also doubt that a reduction in support costs by removing poorly implemented features would result in more profit overall when other users dislike features being pulled and refuse to stay on the upgrade bandwagon.

A long time ago, I created an action to duplicate the image (renamed to "Actual Print Size), re-size the image to my screen resolution and then to set the zoom level to 100%. Is this the same, better, or worse than "View Print Size" which may set the zoom level at, for example, 30%?

A long time ago, I created an action to duplicate the image (renamed to "Actual Print Size), re-size the image to my screen resolution and then to set the zoom level to 100%. Is this the same, better, or worse than "View Print Size" which may set the zoom level at, for example, 30%?

It has nothing to do with "Print size". I use a similar process on Lightroom to view a photo without scaling artifacts. Nothing more than that.

Read what Chris Cox wrote: The change is in the HiDpi support of the OS, plus all the code we added to support high DPI displays. The physical display resolution is only part of the picture, since the OS wants to scale things drawn to the screen in multiple different ways... Again, we know, we're working on a solution - but we had to disable it for now.. If you want to blame Apple for changing the display pipeline, you go right ahead.

Maybe that's the reason why a similar feature have never been added to Lightroom at all.

I can see Adobe are having problems with the whole Creative Suite; How to keep it rolling in the money from loyal upgraders when it's already mature and feature complete.

Actually, Adobe is doing just fine (really good actually). See this article from The Motley Fool (a stock picking web site) This Software Giant is Flying High. In the industry, Adobe is seen as very successful with it's Creative Cloud efforts (even though a vocal group of users don't like it). This CC CS6.1 update actually brought new features to Photoshop Cloud version which perpetual license holders won't see until the next .5 update. Yes, some CS6 perpetual license users were complaining because they though they should have gotten the new features for free–but that not how the subscription service/perpetual license dev works...

It's likely (based on what Chris and Jeff said in their posts) that some sort of improved Print Size feature may indeed come back (which if it works well, I'm all for) but the timeline is not at all clear...

What I would not do is judge Adobe based on online forum posts which are not a good indicator of the feeling and thoughts of the vast majority of the Creative Suite user-base. Heck, photographers make up less than 10% of the Photoshop user-base and an even smaller % of Creative Suite users. I know photographers think they are a really important group to Creative Suite and Photoshop but we simply are not. We are a big market for Lightroom however...but advanced amateurs outweigh pros for Lightroom.

It's tough reading tea leaves and making any real sense of the marketplace...with Adobe's stock being a few $ off their 52 week high, I think Adobe is doing just fine (which is fine by me because I still have Adobe stock–not sure I would be a buyer right now...might want to wait till after we do/don't go over the "fiscal cliff" next week).

Despite a few people here who stubbornly refuse to believe that this feature, imperfect as it may be, still has utility to some of us who understand its limitations, a member of the greater Photoshop community has posted a solution in Adobe's Photoshop Forum:

Schewe: "Removed because, well, unless you knew how to properly set up the exact resolution of your display, it was always wrong...so, do you know how to properly setup the exact screen rez?…"

I'm offended by this incredibly patronizing and arrogant statement! When have you last been in a professional's work place?

If this is the way Adobe sees its Photoshop user base, I'm deeply worried about further dumbing down.

It was EASY for a professional user to set up. It WAS NOT always wrong. I made it work on all my displays and it was a very useful feature when mocking up designs to quickly evaluate the optical weight of visual components at print size (even near print size would be good enough).

Adobe offers Elements, Touch and Lightroom for workflows that do not require the full professional features of PS.

I have instructed hundreds of students to set up their displays with 100% success.

You have devalued Photoshop for no good reason. If users do not know how to set a preference, they usually just keep it at the default. What was wrong with that?

If you must take it away for simpleton's reasons, why not use an "Advanced Settings" Tab?

Schewe: "Removed because, well, unless you knew how to properly set up the exact resolution of your display, it was always wrong...so, do you know how to properly setup the exact screen rez?…"

I'm offended by this incredibly patronizing and arrogant statement! When have you last been in a professional's work place?

Offended? ...and it's just your second post here on LuLa? How cool is that?

:~)

You got some learning to do here bud...if you have a thin skin, this ain't the place to hang out.

Everything I wrote is/was exactly spot on. The technical reason it was yanked was because it couldn't be made to work with Retina. The fact that the feature was, at it's roots, flawed, also came into play.

If you are so desperate for this function, there are work arounds until Adobe decides to put it back.

Really, it would be useful if you want to spend much time around here to racket down the drama queen act. It kinda doesn't go over too well here.

BTW, I personally didn't take ANYTHING away from you...I just happen to agree with the engineer's decision. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. BTW, welcome to LuLa...if you work at it, you might fit in...just dial it down, ok?

:~)

P.S. if ya gotta know, I take a perverse pleasure at offending. You're just egging me on, ya know :~) Have a nice day!

Your self-important reply confirms your arrogance. Not having posted often before makes my post less valid? I apologize for stepping on your patch. You can keep it. I'll be happy to stay away. You can get your perverse "pleasure at offending" from dismissing other contributors as rookies. You can post a further blast at me for your pleasure and perhaps even groupies that will cheer you for it, but I won't be here to read any more of your puerility. What a waste time…

One pleasant surprise of upgrading to Photoshop CC was the re-inclusion of the View Print Size feature dropped in a CS6 upgrade.

When it's set up properly (which isn't difficult) it was a useful tool to many, despite the derision heaped on us by some who couldn't understand why we liked it. Whether or not the engineers changed any underlying code is not apparent, but it's good to have it back.